Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

burandon · 10-13-2009, 03:00 PM

I'm thinking about getting these two because I've found what seems to be a deal (~US$620 for the 16-50, $800 for the 50-135), and was wondering if I should go for it.
I've currently got the 12-24, 43 limited, and the good ol' 18-55 kit lens.
My mount's a K10D (although I'll likely be getting a K-7 when it goes down in price a bit).
The 16-50 might technically be a little redundant, but I could go for a higher quality zoom than the kit lens.
I'm a little worried about SDM issues, as I've heard of a fair number of each of these lenses have them.
Any advice, comments, suggestions?
I'm leaning towards a "yes" here, particularly because I've got a trip to San Francisco in a couple weeks that I'd love to take one (or both) on, but I'm not wholly sure about either.

**Ash** · 10-13-2009, 04:57 PM

Hi and welcome to the forum.
This has been a very very often discussed issue with a plethora of lengthy threads giving examples of whose lenses have failed.

Put simply there are no guarantees of getting copies that will go the distance, given it's a relatively new technology for Pentax, and as a result I strongly advise getting extended warranties for all SDM lenses like these. A suggested test of its robustness would be using the lenses on a regular basis and for some time each time - if the SDM will fail, it will likely fail early on. Don't know the truth about this but it's not bad advice.

This, along with the fewer and fewer QC issues with regards to decentering and sub-par image quality, would be the only reservations I have with the lenses. I only have the 16-50 so far and with regular use for over 9 months now, it's been flawless.

Kirivon · 10-13-2009, 06:07 PM

With the crazy lens price inflation that has been going on recently, if you can get a good deal on a lens I'd go for it, especially if you're about to go on a trip.

Nothing sucks more than passing over a deal, then deciding later you want the lens only to find the cheapest price is 200 dollars more than what you could have bought it for. If you end up not liking the lenses, you can always turn around and sell them. IMO the amount of money you lose reselling a lens is worth the images you get while you have it. Also, the amount of money you lose to depreciation is usually far less than what it would cost to rent a lens for any significant period of time.

Considering your lack of anything on the tele end, the 50-135 seems like a no-brainer, unless you wind up needing more reach from something like the 55-300 or 60-250. I've had my 50-135 for a little under a year with no problems and, not being much of a telephoto guy myself, the relatively compact size and weight is great.

As for the 16-50, it would introduce a lot of redundancy into your setup, but if you still use your kit lens often I think it'd be worth it. The 16-50 gets a lot of flak because it isn't really quantitatively much better than the lens most people were looking to replace, the 16-45, but the main advantages of micro-contrast and color rendition can't really be measured in benchmarks.

In any case, as rainy as San Francisco is, I think the the weather sealing on both lenses will be really beneficial.

laissezfaire · 10-13-2009, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Kirivon

As for the 16-50, it would introduce a lot of redundancy into your setup, but if you still use your kit lens often I think it'd be worth it. The 16-50 gets a lot of flak because it isn't really quantitatively much better than the lens most people were looking to replace, the 16-45, but the main advantages of micro-contrast and color rendition can't really be measured in benchmarks.

In any case, as rainy as San Francisco is, I think the the weather sealing on both lenses will be really beneficial.

What redundancy... once he shoots with the 16-50, he will never pick up the kit lens ever again.

Otherwise, your comments are valid, the 16-50 is on my camera all of the time. But I love taking the 50-135 out since it's a 12 on a scale of 1-10.

Good point re: San Fran. Talk about dampness and mold.

Kirivon · 10-13-2009, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by laissezfaire

What redundancy... once he shoots with the 16-50, he will never pick up the kit lens ever again.

Perhaps "a lot of redundancy" was an overstatement. I was just referring to the overlap with the 12-24 and the 43.

clawhammer · 10-13-2009, 09:45 PM

It may seem like overlap with the 12-24 and the 16-50, but 12 is SO much wider than 16. I wouldn't consider the 12-24 and 16-50 redundant. The 18-55 won't be redundant so much as it will be pointless

get the 16-50, and use your 18-55 for skeet shooting

nulla · 10-14-2009, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by burandon

I'm thinking about getting these two because I've found what seems to be a deal (~US$620 for the 16-50, $800 for the 50-135), and was wondering if I should go for it.
I've currently got the 12-24, 43 limited, and the good ol' 18-55 kit lens.
My mount's a K10D (although I'll likely be getting a K-7 when it goes down in price a bit).
The 16-50 might technically be a little redundant, but I could go for a higher quality zoom than the kit lens.
I'm a little worried about SDM issues, as I've heard of a fair number of each of these lenses have them.
Any advice, comments, suggestions?
I'm leaning towards a "yes" here, particularly because I've got a trip to San Francisco in a couple weeks that I'd love to take one (or both) on, but I'm not wholly sure about either.

Both are stellar lenses.. the DA* 16-50 is on one of my cameras all the time.. easily the best zoom I have ever used.

Neil

Pentax_XTC · 10-14-2009, 07:50 AM

I have both and I can tell you that they are worth it. I have used both in the pouring rain with my K7 and all I have to do is wipe them off once I get indoors. The optical quality is excellent and the fact that they are contant f/2.8 in a zoom is great. I wondered about purchasing both myself, but I have no regrets.

burandon · 10-14-2009, 10:16 AM

Thanks for the advice guys!
I think I'm gonna splurge and go for both!
It's been a while since I've bought a lens, and I think I'll be pretty happy not getting another for quite some time with these two

Thanks again for the recommendations!

HermanLee · 10-14-2009, 10:17 AM

Burandon,

I have both DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 for almost a year now.
None of them has given me any issue so far.

The DA*16-50 is very versatile and my most used zoom because of the focal length and the rich color.
With DA*50-135, I think it's hard to go wrong with this lens. I own several great Pentax primes and I can say 50-135 is close to those primes in regards of IQ.
Amazing zoom indeed. The only drawback is it's kind of slow to autofocus. But once you get it focus, the result is just exceptional. I believe I'm not the only one who gives this compliment.

Before, I was like you, worrying with all of these SDM issue. I couldn't find a better weather sealed zoom than this in the other brands with these prices so I decided to take the plunge. Until now I haven't regret it a bit.

It's a great setup and very convenient.
I had used them both on the other time for a beach trip where my camera got soaked.
The weather sealing really saved my camera.
The coating on the front element seems to repel the water effectively also.

I couldn't find a better weather sealed combo besides these 2 lenses unless you need a longer reach to shoot sexy girls on the beach then you'll need the DA*60-250 or DA*200 or 300

.
In my case, a K-7 will perfect my weather sealed combo.

laissezfaire · 10-15-2009, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by burandon

Thanks for the advice guys!
I think I'm gonna splurge and go for both!
It's been a while since I've bought a lens, and I think I'll be pretty happy not getting another for quite some time with these two

Thanks again for the recommendations!

You won't regret it. Also, one more thing I would like to mention... the quality of these lenses are top notch. They feel like real instruments, not plastic mount toy lenses from other brands that cost just as much

**Ash** · 10-15-2009, 06:44 PM

Enjoy them both mate. And use them often both to test them out as well as to justify your purchases!

bymy141 · 10-16-2009, 07:44 AM

You may want to consider the 60-250mm instead of the 50-150mm.
It is a constant f4 instead of f2.8, it is a little bigger, but you'll get an extra 100mm length.
Perhaps you should find yourself a Pentax retailer and try the 2 side by side, take the results home and evaluate.

- Bert

MikePerham · 10-17-2009, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by clawhammer

It may seem like overlap with the 12-24 and the 16-50, but 12 is SO much wider than 16. I wouldn't consider the 12-24 and 16-50 redundant. The 18-55 won't be redundant so much as it will be pointless

get the 16-50, and use your 18-55 for skeet shooting

I think if I owned the 12-24 it would be only used at the wide end. What I would really like is a DA*12mm f2.8 prime. That would round out my DA* kit very well.

Oggy · 10-17-2009, 03:49 PM

I have both the 16-50 and the 50-135. I find that both lenses are capable of remarkable IQ, but the 16-50 requires a bit of effort whereas the 50-135 is pretty well Oggyproof.

10-13-2009, 03:00 PM	#1
burandon Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2	*DA 16-50mm and 50-135mm** I'm thinking about getting these two because I've found what seems to be a deal (~US$620 for the 16-50, $800 for the 50-135), and was wondering if I should go for it. I've currently got the 12-24, 43 limited, and the good ol' 18-55 kit lens. My mount's a K10D (although I'll likely be getting a K-7 when it goes down in price a bit). The 16-50 might technically be a little redundant, but I could go for a higher quality zoom than the kit lens. I'm a little worried about SDM issues, as I've heard of a fair number of each of these lenses have them. Any advice, comments, suggestions? I'm leaning towards a "yes" here, particularly because I've got a trip to San Francisco in a couple weeks that I'd love to take one (or both) on, but I'm not wholly sure about either.

10-14-2009, 07:50 AM	#8
Pentax_XTC Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Duluth, GA Posts: 365	Get Them While They're Cheap! I have both and I can tell you that they are worth it. I have used both in the pouring rain with my K7 and all I have to do is wipe them off once I get indoors. The optical quality is excellent and the fact that they are contant f/2.8 in a zoom is great. I wondered about purchasing both myself, but I have no regrets.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Lenses F2 50mm, F4 75-150mm, F1.7 50mm, F4 200mm, F2.5 135mm, F4.5 80-2	hangu	Sold Items	10	03-27-2010 07:51 PM
For Sale - Sold: Three Pentax SMC M-Series Lenses: 50mm/1.4, 50mm/1.7, 135mm/3.5!	wallyb	Sold Items	12	02-19-2010 01:24 PM
For Sale - Sold: K10D, K20D, Grips, AF-540FGZ, 50mm 1.4, 77mm 1.8, 12-24mm, 16-50mm, 50-135mm +	qdoan	Sold Items	29	01-13-2010 08:41 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: 3 x 50mm f/2, 50mm f/1.7, 40mm pancake, 135mm, 70-210mm, FAJ 28-80mm	igowerf	Sold Items	12	10-13-2007 08:55 PM

10-13-2009, 04:57 PM	#2
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Hi and welcome to the forum. This has been a very very often discussed issue with a plethora of lengthy threads giving examples of whose lenses have failed. Put simply there are no guarantees of getting copies that will go the distance, given it's a relatively new technology for Pentax, and as a result I strongly advise getting extended warranties for all SDM lenses like these. A suggested test of its robustness would be using the lenses on a regular basis and for some time each time - if the SDM will fail, it will likely fail early on. Don't know the truth about this but it's not bad advice. This, along with the fewer and fewer QC issues with regards to decentering and sub-par image quality, would be the only reservations I have with the lenses. I only have the 16-50 so far and with regular use for over 9 months now, it's been flawless.

10-13-2009, 06:07 PM	#3
Kirivon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 173	With the crazy lens price inflation that has been going on recently, if you can get a good deal on a lens I'd go for it, especially if you're about to go on a trip. Nothing sucks more than passing over a deal, then deciding later you want the lens only to find the cheapest price is 200 dollars more than what you could have bought it for. If you end up not liking the lenses, you can always turn around and sell them. IMO the amount of money you lose reselling a lens is worth the images you get while you have it. Also, the amount of money you lose to depreciation is usually far less than what it would cost to rent a lens for any significant period of time. Considering your lack of anything on the tele end, the 50-135 seems like a no-brainer, unless you wind up needing more reach from something like the 55-300 or 60-250. I've had my 50-135 for a little under a year with no problems and, not being much of a telephoto guy myself, the relatively compact size and weight is great. As for the 16-50, it would introduce a lot of redundancy into your setup, but if you still use your kit lens often I think it'd be worth it. The 16-50 gets a lot of flak because it isn't really quantitatively much better than the lens most people were looking to replace, the 16-45, but the main advantages of micro-contrast and color rendition can't really be measured in benchmarks. In any case, as rainy as San Francisco is, I think the the weather sealing on both lenses will be really beneficial.

10-13-2009, 08:15 PM	#4
laissezfaire Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 188	Originally posted by Kirivon As for the 16-50, it would introduce a lot of redundancy into your setup, but if you still use your kit lens often I think it'd be worth it. The 16-50 gets a lot of flak because it isn't really quantitatively much better than the lens most people were looking to replace, the 16-45, but the main advantages of micro-contrast and color rendition can't really be measured in benchmarks. In any case, as rainy as San Francisco is, I think the the weather sealing on both lenses will be really beneficial. What redundancy... once he shoots with the 16-50, he will never pick up the kit lens ever again. Otherwise, your comments are valid, the 16-50 is on my camera all of the time. But I love taking the 50-135 out since it's a 12 on a scale of 1-10. Good point re: San Fran. Talk about dampness and mold.

10-13-2009, 08:46 PM	#5
Kirivon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 173	Originally posted by laissezfaire What redundancy... once he shoots with the 16-50, he will never pick up the kit lens ever again. Perhaps "a lot of redundancy" was an overstatement. I was just referring to the overlap with the 12-24 and the 43.

10-13-2009, 09:45 PM	#6
clawhammer Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Logan, Utah Photos: Gallery Posts: 971	It may seem like overlap with the 12-24 and the 16-50, but 12 is SO much wider than 16. I wouldn't consider the 12-24 and 16-50 redundant. The 18-55 won't be redundant so much as it will be pointless get the 16-50, and use your 18-55 for skeet shooting

10-14-2009, 03:50 AM	#7
nulla Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 1,560	Originally posted by burandon I'm thinking about getting these two because I've found what seems to be a deal (~US$620 for the 16-50, $800 for the 50-135), and was wondering if I should go for it. I've currently got the 12-24, 43 limited, and the good ol' 18-55 kit lens. My mount's a K10D (although I'll likely be getting a K-7 when it goes down in price a bit). The 16-50 might technically be a little redundant, but I could go for a higher quality zoom than the kit lens. I'm a little worried about SDM issues, as I've heard of a fair number of each of these lenses have them. Any advice, comments, suggestions? I'm leaning towards a "yes" here, particularly because I've got a trip to San Francisco in a couple weeks that I'd love to take one (or both) on, but I'm not wholly sure about either. Both are stellar lenses.. the DA* 16-50 is on one of my cameras all the time.. easily the best zoom I have ever used. Neil

10-14-2009, 10:16 AM	#9
burandon Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2 Original Poster	Thanks for the advice guys! I think I'm gonna splurge and go for both! It's been a while since I've bought a lens, and I think I'll be pretty happy not getting another for quite some time with these two Thanks again for the recommendations!

10-14-2009, 10:17 AM	#10
HermanLee Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Southern California, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 729	Burandon, I have both DA16-50 and DA50-135 for almost a year now. None of them has given me any issue so far. The DA16-50 is very versatile and my most used zoom because of the focal length and the rich color. With DA50-135, I think it's hard to go wrong with this lens. I own several great Pentax primes and I can say 50-135 is close to those primes in regards of IQ. Amazing zoom indeed. The only drawback is it's kind of slow to autofocus. But once you get it focus, the result is just exceptional. I believe I'm not the only one who gives this compliment. Before, I was like you, worrying with all of these SDM issue. I couldn't find a better weather sealed zoom than this in the other brands with these prices so I decided to take the plunge. Until now I haven't regret it a bit. It's a great setup and very convenient. I had used them both on the other time for a beach trip where my camera got soaked. The weather sealing really saved my camera. The coating on the front element seems to repel the water effectively also. I couldn't find a better weather sealed combo besides these 2 lenses unless you need a longer reach to shoot sexy girls on the beach then you'll need the DA60-250 or DA200 or 300 . In my case, a K-7 will perfect my weather sealed combo.

10-15-2009, 05:18 PM	#11
laissezfaire Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 188	Originally posted by burandon Thanks for the advice guys! I think I'm gonna splurge and go for both! It's been a while since I've bought a lens, and I think I'll be pretty happy not getting another for quite some time with these two Thanks again for the recommendations! You won't regret it. Also, one more thing I would like to mention... the quality of these lenses are top notch. They feel like real instruments, not plastic mount toy lenses from other brands that cost just as much

10-15-2009, 06:44 PM	#12
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Enjoy them both mate. And use them often both to test them out as well as to justify your purchases!

10-16-2009, 07:44 AM	#13
bymy141 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,563	You may want to consider the 60-250mm instead of the 50-150mm. It is a constant f4 instead of f2.8, it is a little bigger, but you'll get an extra 100mm length. Perhaps you should find yourself a Pentax retailer and try the 2 side by side, take the results home and evaluate. - Bert

10-17-2009, 08:55 AM	#14
MikePerham Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Prince George, BC Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 642	Originally posted by clawhammer It may seem like overlap with the 12-24 and the 16-50, but 12 is SO much wider than 16. I wouldn't consider the 12-24 and 16-50 redundant. The 18-55 won't be redundant so much as it will be pointless get the 16-50, and use your 18-55 for skeet shooting I think if I owned the 12-24 it would be only used at the wide end. What I would really like is a DA12mm f2.8 prime. That would round out my DA kit very well.

10-17-2009, 03:49 PM	#15
Oggy Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: West Sussex UK Posts: 235	I have both the 16-50 and the 50-135. I find that both lenses are capable of remarkable IQ, but the 16-50 requires a bit of effort whereas the 50-135 is pretty well Oggyproof.

DA* 16-50mm and 50-135mm

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!